The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life:
"Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in
the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of
the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios
is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of
innovative technologies."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
My response:
The argument states that corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. The argument provides vague support in the form of unemployment rates in the city in comparison to the regional average and historical reference to share of jobs contributed by the city. Stated this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated and readily makes questionable assumptions. Therefore the argument is extremely weak and unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument cites Helios' unemployment rate as compared to the regional average as a factor that will convince corporations to consider the city to expand or to set up a business. There is no concrete information on the unemployment rates of Helios and other cities. For instance, the unemployment rate in Helios could be 7% as compared to the regional average of 8%. However, without further information on the working population numbers of Helios as well as the region, we can make no effective comparison as to whether this is a positive or a negative trend. There is also no mention of source of this particular piece of information, making one doubt its credibility. Finally, even if it were that Helios had a lower unemployment rate, it is not reason enough for a corporation to base its decision to consider Helios for the purpose of expansion.
Secondly, the argument states that Helios is the industrial centre of the region, and has historically provided more than its share of the region's manufacturing jobs. Once again, the argument relies on a historical trend and makes an assumption that this trend would continue and that Helios would continue to contribute to provision of jobs for the region. Also, the argument misses the fact that Helios' capacity to provide jobs in one sector i.e. manufacturing does not preclude an ability to do so in other sectors. The argument would have benefitted from providing this historical data and breakdown by sectors, as currently it makes a vague claim of 'its share of jobs'. How much is this share? In which sector? What about the other sectors? If the argument can convincingly address these question in the form of robust data, then it would benefit greatly.
Thirdly, when a corporation is looking to seek a business opportunity or expand an ongoing business, it would look at factors such as infrastructure, operating costs, competition , manpower readiness as well. Stability of economy (even if that can be claimed) and a potential to provide jobs may not be the driving force for the decisions. The argument does not address other these areas at all.
Finally, the argument cites that in order to broaden its economic base it wants to attract companies that focus on R & D in innovative technologies. Once again, for it to do so, there has to more information on the capabilities of Helios to actually attract such companies. R & D companies typically require good infrastructure, niche pool of workers, ease of filing patents etc to consider a particular region or country. What is also absurd is citing these companies as a way to broaden its economic base. If at all, one can argue the other way, wherein realising profits from R &D initiatives take a much longer time, there is no certainty of success in comparison to other ventures and this would actually weaken the argument's reasoning.
In conclusion, due to the above stated factors, the authors' argument that corporations should look to Helios as a place to start new businesses or expand an existing business is weak and unsubstantiated. It would heavily benefit from providing convincing data surrounding its claims, examples of success stories of companies, etc. Without this kind of information the argument is not sound or persuasive for companies to consider Helios as a business destination.
Appreciate your time to read this and your feedback! Thank you